The announcement came in a brief, unsigned opinion issued by the justices when they took the bench this morning to release opinions in cases argued on the merits earlier this term. The substance of the EO-1, the EO-2, and prior related litigation were previously addressed by our Immigration Alerts of January 30, February 7, February 10, February 17, March 6, March 16 and May 25. "The administration's Muslim ban foments disturbing trends of anti-Muslim sentiments within the US and overseas". He added that the order "allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective".
That's because Trump's order only sought to halt travelers from the six countries for 90 days, to give the administration time to review the screening procedures for those visa applicants. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that EO-1 was unconstitutional because it was meant to discriminate against Muslims. This includes the past five months, during which the White House has repeatedly insisted on the ban's importance even as it has shown little urgency in filing its appeals.
Der Manouel said the ban is based on terrorism and ensuring protection of the U.S.
In light of those orders, EO-2 purported to revoke the EO-1 and to impose similar, but narrower, restrictions.
A federal judge in Seattle blocked the order a week later, and Trump eventually revised it, dropping Iraq from the list and including reasons people might be exempted, such as a need for medical treatment. But Trump does business in Saudi Arabia, not in the six banned countries. Eventually, people likely will be barred from boarding planes to the US, he said.
Like EO-1, EO-2 also prompted numerous lawsuits, which generally alleged that it was merely a thinly disguised continuation of the President's same discriminatory travel policies. Officials can get on with the task of vetting USA immigration policy while blocking from entry foreigners without any US ties. That was also struck down by lower courts.
Mr Gorsky said the standard is likely to sow confusion among United States consular officials who have to make visa decisions and could require another court decision to determine what constitutes a connection to the United States sufficient to allow entry. This decision has stirred up major emotions from both sides, just like back in January when Trump first introduced his travel ban.
Government lawyers were working on guidelines Tuesday, one day after the Supreme Court partially reinstated the ban ahead of hearing arguments in October.
This means those with no "bona fide" USA ties can be barred from entry if they come from any of the six Muslim-majority countries subject to the ban.
On the other hand, the justices said, relationships created for the purposes of evading the travel ban will not be considered valid.
First, the Court granted the government's request to review the two preliminary injunctions.
In the unsigned opinion, the court said a foreign national who wants to visit or live with a family member would have such a relationship, and so would students from the designated countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - who were admitted to a USA university.
In summary, nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can continue to enter the U.S.to visit family, attend school, or work.
"It is regrettable that the citizens of the countries on the list have never participated in any act of terrorism against the US and yet they are being punished for acts of terrorism", Zarif told reporters Tuesday during a visit to Berlin.
Although President Trump is claiming it as a victory, this iteration is far more limited than the two previous versions.